Our rebuttal to claims about the adaptive significance of the female orgasm has been published, as Zietsch & Santtila's study is not evidence against the by-product theory of female orgasm. I blogged about this a while back, and also dealt with some counter-arguments, and Elisabeth Lloyd thought my arguments were strong enough to be incorporated into a letter, so there you go…now I just need a badge or a t-shirt with a proclamation about my expertise on it.
Wallen K, Myers PZ, Lloyd EA (2012) Zietsch & Santtila’s study is not evidence against the by-product theory of female orgasm. Animal Behaviour http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2012.05.023
- Log in to post comments
It's behind an elsevier paywall and costs 31.50 $ to read. Ah, no thanks
You should not publish in Elsevier journals.
$31.50 a time for an expert on female orgasms is cheap!
Scientists of all countries, unite against Elesvier!
Absurd. The female orgasm is a myth propogated by the magazine industry. I've certainly never seen it happen.
Over at FtB, PZ has said that the response was submitted to Animal Behaviour because that's where the original paper appeared – so it will reach the same readers. This is common practice, and it should be; Zietsch & Santtila are the ones that shouldn't have published in an Elsevier journal in the first place. :-)
What makes you think your sample is large enough?
Anyone who wants to see the reply can find it here:
http://www2.psy.uq.edu.au/~zietsch/Zietsch&Santtila2012%20Confusion%20i…